I don't know what you mean to say by claiming the distinction. Can you prove to me that you have a richer first person perspective than a bat? Or if that's too hard can you convincingly demonstrate that the bat doesn't have a richer first person perspective than you? If no to both it's all needles empty speculation and self aggrandisement.

I don't know with complete certainty that there IS a distinction, to be sure, since I don't know how consciousness/subjectivity/personhood works. Every previous grouping of entities we've accepted as people have said so themselves.

I've heard professors preface generalisation or metaphors with, "What I'm about to say isn't exactly true but it should be helpful in apprehending the central concept."

Basically to include extensive caveats and exceptions in the first explanation is to risk overwhelming the novice.

I think that's what this is. Sort of just moving from a high level understanding to a lower level one. Is there more to it?

Yeah, those concepts agree with each other, so there's still some value to the simplification once you know the complex explanation.

This is more of a sabotage mission, where the examples are meant to convince of their own inadequacy (and the inadequacy of rigid logical thought).